From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
GaggoHaas
I
reverted the addition of GaggoHaas to the list of brands. The brands
list is for prominent, mainstream, mass-produced brands, not small-scale
web businesses. The latter should go in the Web Businesses section. (In
fact GaggoHaas is already there.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 13:41 9 September 2006
Disney cartoons
Don't most Disney characters, particularly in the 1950's cartoons but even today, wear these?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous55 (talk • contribs) 12:59 12 September 2006
Deleted Text
I
removed the part about infantile fetishes, because not everyone who
desires to havea pair of these pajamas has a desire to wear diapers or
in any way act like a baby. My husband wants a pair of these, because he
has fond childhood memories of putting his footed feet on a warm
radiator on a cold winter night. This is no different than having a cup
of hot chocolate with marshmellows on a cold winter night.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.35.20 (talk • contribs) 08:55 26 October 2006
- I put it back. The passage didn't say that every adult who likes to
wear sleepers is a fetishist, much less an infantilist; just that "much"
of the demand for sleepers in adult sizes is related to fetishism
(which is true). If you think the article places too much emphasis on
fetishism relative to other reasons adults might want to wear sleepers
(which may be a valid criticism), I would suggest, rather than deleting
useful information, a better solution would be to add some new text
saying that there are reasons other than fetishism, and what those
reasons are (such as you did in your above comment).Anonymous55 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Cotton Sleepers
I
moved the sentence regarding cotton sleepers and internet businesses
from the "Features" section to the "Design considerations" section (and
also re-phrased it a bit). The "Features" section is meant merely to
describe what a typical sleeper looks like for someone who's never seen
one, and IMO shouldn't go into detail about rare exceptions and unusual
features (which comes later in the article). All of the internet sleeper
businesses put together represent a tiny fraction of the overall
market, so the fact that some of them offer sleepers in cotton IMO
doesn't merit being mentioned that early in the article.
Anonymous55 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Baby Costumes
I
moved the paragraph about Halloween baby costumes from the "Costume
sleepers" subsection of the "Variations" section to the "Design
considerations" section (and re-phrased a bit). The "Variations" section
is supposed to be for variations in the design/features of the sleeper
itself, rather than variations in how sleepers are used. When someone
wears a sleeper as part of a baby costume, usually the sleeper itself is
perfectly normal, so a paragraph about baby costumes doesn't really fit
into what that section is about.
Anonymous55 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Stretch n Grow
I deleted the
Stretch n Grow
reference, as I don't think it's really relevant here. Based on the
description, and what I was able to find with some Googling, the
Stretch n Grow
appears to be a general-purpose garment, rather than specifically a
type of sleepwear. It seems to be the equivilent of what in the US would
be called a
onesie, creeper, bodysuit, coverall, or
romper, all of which are rather distinct from a blanket sleeper.
If there's a New Zealand analogue to the British
sleepsuit, it would be good to include that in the article. The article does mention a couple of garments that aren't sleepwear (i.e.
pram suit),
but only to dinstinguish them from blanket sleepers. Giving a regional
synonym for a garment that isn't a type of sleepwear, and is no more
closely related to a blanket sleeper than a onesie/creeper/etc. is,
seems to me a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't want to see this article turn
into a catch-all for any one-piece infant garment.
Anonymous55 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Opening paragraph, etc.
Olwak, regarding your edits to the opening paragraph:
There's already a paragraph in the opening section that mentions the
existence of sleepers in adult sizes, with a pointer to an entire
section detailing sizing and availability issues. Your insertion of "the
garment exists for all ages" in the first paragraph is therefore
redundant. It's also much too early to mention that in the second
sentence. There's a lot of information that has to be covered in the
article, and it can't all be covered in the first couple of sentences.
For that reason the article has to start with generalities, and then go
into details and exceptions later. The ratio of sleepers made in
children's vs. adult sizes is easily 100 to 1 or more. Most people in
the US don't even know that adult-size sleepers exist. That being the
case, "commonly worn by infants and young children", without any further
qualification, is perfectly accurate and not at all misleading. It
doesn't imply that adult-size sleepers don't exist at all, just that
they're not common (which is true). With your edit, the opening
sentence, taken in isolation, is quite misleading to someone not
familiar with the topic (people outside the US and Canada for example).
If you don't say a garment is for children, the default implication is
that it's for adults, or for both children and adults but at least as
much for adults as for children. The first sentence, which is the most
important, and should be the most carefully crafted sentence in the
article, is now critically dependent on the second sentence to be
understood correctly, which is bad.
And why did you move the warning about disturbing material into the middle of the list of web businesses? That's just bizarre.
Anonymous55 18:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Demand greatest by AB/DL community?
There is no citation for this comment at the end of the
Size, gender, and availability
section. Does anyone know if this is accurate? Unless someone can come
up with a source that shows that most of these sleepers are ordered by
people for fetish reasons I think that this comment should be removed.
--
Deepraine (
talk) 01:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Running a small business that makes these to order I would say that
'Demand greatest by AB/DL community' is not true, for us anyway. We
produce a large percentage for customers who order both adult and child
sizes at the same time. No doubt there are some who order for this but I
am certain that the majority are not. I agree that this comment should
be removed.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppyite (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Attributed Effects
Under
Minor Variations> Organic, the current wording implies to me a
direct and irrefutable link between all the listed disorders and flame
retardants, synthetic fabrics, and pesticides. I don't recall having
seen any such reports of evidence, thought I could be wrong.
Additionally, I find the mention of pesticides quite odd, as there would
be no reason to use pesticides with synthetic fabrics. I should imagine
the amount if processing involved in creating cloth from other sources
would render any residual quantities negligable. My thought is, alter
the section to mention some persons prefer to avoid synthetics and flame
retardants, possibly with a reference to a belief these compounds are
linked to multiple disorders and problems --
Scienda (
talk) 09:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just removed everything relating to "organic", "dye-free",
"toxins", and all; it just seemed too closely related to the "Snug
Organics" spam I cleaned up. I don't see the need to mention organic and
dye-free fabrics, because current regulations severely restrict the
products that may be used in children's clothing, and I don't think that
being seen to lend support to the idea that the chemicals in question
cause the disorders that were mentioned without more scientific evidence
would uphold Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. If readers are
interested in procuring "organic" and "dye-free" clothing for whatever
reasons, they are free to research the products available on their own.
- I re-worked some passages that seemed awkward without changing the meaning of the text, I won't go into details here.
- I hate the word "organic" in this context, since it was just stolen from science. Why couldn't they have used a different word? Sigh, I'm getting off topic again. dm01 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Blanket Sleeper? Really?!
The
name of this article is exactly why I hate wikipedia. No one has *ever*
called these a "blanket sleeper" (a term that sounds suspiciously
British, though the article claims the Brits call it a sleepsuit or
something). I don't see one single citation in the "Terminology"
section. And isn't wikipedia almost ridiculously obsessed with
"reliable" sources? (well, not almost) Where's the proof that anyone has
ever called it this stupid name? And don't say "That's what we've
always called it" because that's anecdotal and original research. See
how I can use Wikipedia's stupid rules against you?! Take that! Now find
a citation, or change the article name to something less stupid. --
Buddy13 (
talk) 18:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a common term, I guess, but it is the most accurate. The
garment is marketed under that name by many outlets including Gerber,
Land's End, .... I'm happy to add a source, from Google books and Google
scholar no less, or you could do the same. Just type: "Blanket Sleeper"
in Google books or Google scholar. You'll save me some time, as I have
to go away on a short Wikibreak on account of a family emergency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I would, but... I have given up on adding content to
Wikipedia. All I do now is grammar/punctuation-type edits. Because of
the ridiculous bureaucracy this place has become. I refuse to muddle
through it. Which is why I created my own Wiki, with blackjack. And hookers. --Buddy13 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at
Talk:Blanket sleeper/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following
several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Very comprehensive but needs references'. Will tag article accordingly. Daniel Case 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
(11)
Cozy adult blanket sleeper
zips down the front or the back.
100% polyester fleece or 100% cotton knit. This perfect, cuddly garment can have
the option of having long or short legs and sleeves.
